Topic: Segwit vs Legacy, fees? (Read 357 times)

At this period that bitcoin transactions fees is extremely high using segwit is the best option as you will pay low fees on transactions, if only you monitor to know the right time and day to do transaction on segwit you may pay less then 50% on fees mostly early hours on weekends.

The initial BTC address is regarded as a legacy address, while SegWit is a newer address format with lower fees.
Segregated Witness (SegWit) stands for "separated witness," with "segregated" meaning "to differentiate" and "witness" referring to the transaction signatures involved in a particular transaction.

Thank you. It is excellent post that reminds me another topic, to verify message signed by a Segwit address.

• How to verify SegWit signature with Brainwallet ?

I read it again and found that with same private key, it can be converted into different bitcoin address. More interesting finding, you are the one helped @lulucrypto to make that topic. 

Hope you read what I posted above, also check the bolded quotes below, I think it is clear how I mentioned 'it depends'. If I want, I can pay $10 fee for $5 worth of bitcoin transaction, it is possible, although I wouldn't do that. Please never mind this, your quote is not necessary as I explained about the fee above. And I still remain to the point, bitcoin transaction fee depends on the weight of the transaction.

More than half of input value: https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/85329b9ff63ee1a2ab7602a338b857d3427e6d2d44b10ddb25591605a1b04ffa

If you take the basics of transaction size that does not depend on the amount of bitcoin you send out in one transaction, fees can consume most of your input value if you use high fee rate and many small inputs.
size does not depend on the input value.

---

I am sorry. My English is bad.

Your post is very long and I don't read it all. Another minus point in your post is bad punctuations. Frankly said, it is my contribution for your writing. It is not my attack.

I bet that anyone can understand your sentence

No, transaction fee can not consume half of the bitcoin sent, it depends, bitcoin transaction is measured in weight. For example, you want to make a transaction of $10 with segwit address, while the mempool is not congested and a feerate of 30 sat/vbytes can make the transaction included in the next block and be confirmed, this will cost around $1.8 with the present bitcoin price, also consider the transaction to have 1 input and 2 outputs. Although, $1.8 is paid for $10 transaction, but if it is the conditions are constant (1 input, 1 output, segwit address used and mempool is 30 sat/vbyte), making higher transaction like $1000 or even higher will still only cost $1.8 in fee to be paid, but this is when you use wallets.

Transaction fee is not determined by the amount of bitcoin paid, it is determined by:

• Mempool
• The type of address used
• Number of inputs and Outputs
• Transaction weight

If mempool is not congested, you will pay lower fee, the more the congestion, the higher the feerate and the higher the fee. The number of inputs in a transaction makes the transaction weight heavier, which will significantly increase the fee, the number of output also does but does not make transactions weight much heavier if compared to number of inputs.

On exchanges, the fee is not flexible but static, exchanges have a constant fee customers do pay. Like on binance, the fee is 0.0005BTC, likewise on HBTC exchange. On HitBTC, the fee is 0.0009BTC, there are some exchanges that still charge higher and some charge lower fee, but on each exchange, the fee is constant irrespective of the addresses used. Although, the exchanges uses this to gain because the exchange will pay less fee to miners, use less fee to consolidate and gain the remaining fee paid. So, the extra fee which makes exchanges fee higher and yet constant is for the exchange maintainance, and this is not how normal wallets operates.
 

I do not think this is an issue if there are lot of software to sign segwit message, any wallet that support segwit and that can verify message will verify segwit message, I have used electrum and coinomi for this before, there are still some wallets like that, I will soon try the one on mycelium, and I believed it will be able to verify segwit messages.

You are right, but what I can say here is that it is not good for exchange not to support segwit, like Binance, it does not support P2SH, Binance was only supoorting legacy before but in 2020 it started to support bc1 addreses which I think it is enough. But I get the point for exchanges to support P2SH also, but I do not know the reason why exchanges are not just flexible like wallets when it comes to address types.

As I said BIP137 existed long before it turned into a BIP and bitcoin core does support it (at least 9 years ago) it is just not called that and it doesn't support the SegWit part and it is bitcoin core's missing feature which core users should ask the devs to implement it. (but nobody seems to be interested in the feature enough to make the effort!).

Because most commonly of Legacy bitcoin addresses are web wallets that can not modify the fees.
Probably because this will reduces the mempool network congestion and decrease the average transaction fee.

What transportation? Do you mean riding a bus? The cause is simply because the network is heavily congested.
it means there are too many bitcoin users.

How did you prefer it, people are saying both are correlated in terms of charges, but these is really giving a problem because in any transaction now the charges almost consumed half of the money using for transportation, I want to know the causes of these.

I don't think Bitcoin Core implemented either of the BIP? Or I can't find any of sign of the two being implemented.

Yes, it's possible to sign a message with the private key but you cannot refer to the bech32 address directly in doing so; exporting key-> sign message. You have to access the console to call signmessagewithprivkey and use your private key to do so.

You don't sign message with you address, you sign them with your private key. And as long as you can sign a transaction you can also sign a message.
There IS a standard for signing messages from any address type available, and it has been around for many years now and is recognized by major bitcoin implementations. If one software doesn't have the feature then it is that software's flaw and you should complain to their developers about why they haven't implemented such an old feature.

For reference:
BIP 137 existed from early years but turned into BIP in 2019: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0137.mediawiki
BIP 322 created in 2018 and covers more cases: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0322.mediawiki

Custodial wallets can also support Segwit and save on the fees, so I'll argue that usage of non-custodial wallet is out of the equation.

From what I've seen, most people actually don't bother to move their funds from legacy addresses after they receive it from their exchange. Mostly due to the fact that people hardly use Bitcoin for their normal payment and thus don't usually face an issue. If you're not going to give the user an option to use segwit addresses, then the user might be less motivated to use Segwit from the on-start and exchange might be contributing to network congestion as well. I personally wouldn't support them as the costs are usually borne by the user in one way or another.

Segwit usages begin with non custodial wallet usage and then choose a good non-custodial wallet that support Segwit address. Two first acceptances need to be done before other things can be done.

People can not control what exchanges do and accept but they can always save fees on their activities. They always have options to choose and Segwit is one of such. If they reject their control, they can not blame it on exchanges.

If they don't support P2SH addresses, then it's probably poor implementation and I would rather people not support them. P2SH has been around since 2012, which is probably earlier than what most services were established.

Withdrawal fees are usually the same for all address types when using exchange. The problem arises when you're trying to spend it. No matter what happens, you're going to have to spend more when you're spending your Bitcoins. As most wallets only support generating one of the three address type in the a single wallet, it's entirely possible that the user will end up never using Segwit addresses.

I prefer Segwit to save fees

I think there is a misunderstanding here.

Segwit addresses cannot sign messages. This is one of cons pointed out ranochigo.

Well, it can sign messages, but there is no standard to recognize it. In practice, you cannot sign  a message from segwit addresses which will be recognized by all software.

But you can with Legacy. A message signed from a legacy address will be recognized everywhere.

But, no big deal...

You can send from one address to another, if you want to send to segwit from exchanges, it is possible irrespective of the bitcoin address you are using. There are some exchanges that only support legacy addresses, there are some that only support only compatible (3) addresses, there are some that support segwit (bc1) addresses, but segwit or legacy, the withdrawal fee are constant on exchanges. I will still also prefer segwit (bc1) addresses than compatible (3) addresees on wallets because of low fee.

First, I tend to agree with all comments above that have more advantages is using the Segwit address which far better when we talk about the fees.  But what is the purpose of switching Bitcoin wallets that supports Segwit address if you aren't regularly having transaction, if you're holding it for a long term, that is okay using a legacy address.

It was said above, Segwit wallet is for the reduction of transaction fees, also the best of signature, and in the network optimizations while the legacy wallet address is the origin of the Bitcoin wallet which is having high fees.

It is absolutely Yes but it depends on which Bitcoin wallet you've used because there are some Bitcoin wallets that didn't fully support Segwit addresses, nested, or native addresses.  Probably it's better to check it first before you decide to have a transaction.

Supporting P2SH (which they obviously should) is probably sufficient. Using nested Segwit will allow for still a significant savings as compared to legacy addresses.

I can't really see any disadvantages of using it, though there isn't a current standards for message signatures but that isn't exactly a dealbreaker either.